Say hey Ian, thanks for the kind words.  And I definitely agree with you.  I myself like Hans urs von Balthasar’s take on theology - theology is best done “from the knees”; praying theology :-)
BTW, are you Orthodox?
Peace and all the best,
Matt

Hi Matt,

[quote author="matt paulson"]
BTW, are you Orthodox?

Anglican [of a high persuasion] investigating Orthodoxy.  I most likely will convert next year [ barring finding out something like they sacrifice their first-born sons! ;-) ;-) ;-) ].

Have a great evening,
Ian.

** Say hey Ian,

Anglican [of a high persuasion] investigating Orthodoxy.  I most likely will convert next year

** Good call!  Though I myself am Catholic, I have the utmost admiration and respect for Orthodoxy.  If ever we are reunited, that day will be the happiest of my life.
Well, I’m off to bed.  Adios and all the best.

what a feast of ecumenism on the Sydney Anglican website. just for the record, I am happy as a no-name-brand-going-to-an-anglican-church-which-is-a-decent-denomination-and-worth-defending evangelical. (I don’t think we start on ecclesiology here). but anyway…

Matt I have snuck a peak at the final page of your book and love the quote from John of the Cross. I hope you don’t mind me quoting from it;

In the beginning the Word was;
He lived in God and possessed in him his infinite happiness . . .
And thus the glory of the Son
Was the Father’s glory,
And the Father possessed
All his glory in the Son.
As the lover in the beloved
Each lived in the other,
And the Love that unites them
Is one with them . . .
In that immense love
Proceeding from the two
The Father spoke words
Of great affection to the Son,
Words of such profound delight
That no one understood them . . .
“My Son, only your
company contents me,
and something pleases me
I love that thing in you . . .
I am pleased with you alone,
O life of my life! . . .”
“My Son, I wish to give you
a bride who will love you. . . .”
“I am very grateful,”
the Son answered;
“I will show my brightness
to the bride you give me,
so that by it she may see
how great my Father is,
and how I have received
my being from your being.” . . .
“Let it be done, then,” said the Father,
“for your love has deserved it.”
And by these words
The world was created.

I love that quote at the end (cheating to look there first I know) of your book. I think the kind of giving and mutual service really encapsulates what the Bible says and what I want to defend.

I am only interested in pushing obedience because I see in it the way the Father’s will for the Son is honoured and effected as the Father sends the Son to die for our sins and for the glory that the Father sets before him.

Funnily enough I don’t think Kevin would disagree with that quote. Sometimes I think this debate is a misunderstanding of what the conservatives are talking about. Not compulsion or coercion but freedom and service in order.

Honour for the Son through the Father’s Son-glorifying plan, honour for the Father from the Son who trusts submits to it despite the cost. And honour through the Son to the Father from the bride of the Lamb who share in it all by the plan of the Father and the faithful sacrifice of the Son.

[quote author="Andrew Moody"]Matt I have snuck a peak at the final page of your book and love the quote from John of the Cross. I hope you don’t mind me quoting from it;

In the beginning the Word was;
He lived in God and possessed in him his infinite happiness . . .
...
“Let it be done, then,” said the Father,
“for your love has deserved it.”
And by these words
The world was created.

* Ian faints *

Argh!!!  I think this is the poem I have been looking for for three months or so!  The one which is set pre-creation?  And where God the Father says to the Son that he will create a bride for Him, but it will cause much grief and necessitate Christ coming to earth and suffering; and Christ agrees.

Is this it?  If yes, can some kind soul please tell me the name of the poem (and, if possible, link me to a site that has it)?  I heard about this poem through several Orthodox theologians / priests and I’ve been wanting to read it for quite some time!  (And I am a huge fan of St John of the Cross!)

Many thanks; God bless,
Ian.

TRINITY

Hi Ian,

Try this web-site for John of the Cross poems, including the one Matt quoted

cheers
Angela

Thanks muchly Angela!

Ian.

** say hey Ian,

* Ian faints *

** Aye, it’s one of the most amazingly beautiful things that I’ve ever read.

Is this it?  If yes, can some kind soul please tell me the name of the poem (and, if possible, link me to a site that has it)?

** The name of it is The Spiritual Canticle.  Happy reading!

** Say hey Andy,

I am only interested in pushing obedience because I see in it the way the Father’s will for the Son is honoured and effected as the Father sends the Son to die for our sins and for the glory that the Father sets before him.

** Aye, but notice the form of the movement as St. John of the Cross perceives it.  It starts with the Father’s gift to the Son, and the Son’s “obedience” is a response to, and Expression of that.  This also seems to be precisely how Hans urs von Balthasar envisions the manner in which the Father and Son are interrelated vis-a-vis the operations ad extra. (In passing, I note that Balthasar was, in my opinion, perhaps the greatest Trinitarian theologian in the Church’s history.)
The Father pours forth into the Son by the gift of the Spirit, and the Son absolutely loves the Father and returns to him in the same Spirit.  And notice this is the form of the economy of salvation.  When the Son emerges from the waters, it is with the descent of the Spirit that the Father’s absolute declaration is made - “This is my Son, the beloved . . .” (similarly, on Mount Tabor, it is from within the shining cloud [= the Spirit] that the Father announces that “This is my Son").  And the Son, being wholly supple to the Father’s self-gift, is led by the Spirit into the desert of the fallen world, that he might gather into himself humanity and the whole cosmos, which, when in him, participates in this unspeakably glorious Triune life.
So, I think it is well worth considering whether or not even though the Father is the source of all actions, and the Son and Spirit do as they do because it is the Father’s will, still, this will of the Father is such that it is diffusive and giving - the Son Images that; and just as the Son is the Image and Expression of the Father, so too the Spirit is the translation of the Father and Son’s love for one another into Person.
But alas, I better retreat before I get dizzy!
Adios and all the best,
Matt

To the extent I follow what you are saying I agree. Though I am mightily confused by the Spirit’s personhood and what it means for him to be

“the translation of the Father and Son’s love for one another into Person”

I’m not saying I disagree - just that it addles me.

(is the problem that with the Son the dominant picture of his relation to the Father is personal - Son - with process/psychological overtones - Word/Wisdom. But with the Spirit the emphasis is flipped; he is first someone’s Spirit (Fathers and Son’s) but also a person - another counsellor etc.

When you say “diffusive and giving” do you mean the Father’s will is at once the Son’s will (diffusive) and that it is for the Son (giving)?

** Say hey Andy,

Though I am mightily confused by the Spirit’s personhood and what it means for him to be
“the translation of the Father and Son’s love for one another into Person”
I’m not saying I disagree - just that it addles me.

** To put it more simply I’d just say that the person that is the Spirit has a personality which tends to intimate communion and interpersonal love, not that the abstract noun “love” is to be frozen and have a personality (somehow) pasted on to it.
I’ll risk a weak analogy: have you seen The Passion?  Did watching Christ make you want to be more giving to others?  If so, and you did become giving to others, we could say that in a sense that your actions and personality at those moments were a “translation of self-givingness into human being,” etc.  It doesn’t follow that your person is replaced by the quality of “self-givingness”; rather, it means that your personality expresses itself by self-giving.

When you say “diffusive and giving” do you mean the Father’s will is at once the Son’s will (diffusive) and that it is for the Son (giving)?

** I’d say the Father’s will is possessed by the Son in a manner appropriate to the Son as the Son.  For example, if the Father wills to love the Son, I don’t think that that will is simply mirrored by the Son (which would result in “the Son wills to love the Son").  It would seem more fitting if the Son’s “having the Father’s will” in that situation would be the Son’s loving the Father.  The form of the will is identical but the object of its term is distinct, depending on the person.
Adios and all the best,
Matt

Nice nuancing. The Passion analogy makes it clearer. I note that a lot of what you say here could be realised in an interpersonal model.

I read a very interesting passage by GL Prestige this morning where he traces a diversity of opinion amongst the apologists where some of them speak of the Son doing the Father’s will and others have him as the Fathers will. It passed unoticed at first but later the Arians grab the first and the orthodox run with the second.

The problem here is I think we need both. If the Son simply does the Father’s will then how is he different from a servant (or a subordinate deity)? But if he simply is the Father’s will then where (as they say) is the love?

There needs to be a natural conection as will as a voluntary connection. Which is exactly what shows up in John’s gospel I think.

Are we are saying the same thing but emphasising different truths? You want to qualify ideas of relationship with reminders that we are dealing with the one God.  So ideas of “speaking” mustn’t lead to the idea that the Son was ignorant before the Father speaks (yet communication does issue from the Father). The Son does the Father’s will but that will is still properly his own not imposed on him.

If you agree then here is a more dangerous question. What if the Son doesn’t know the Father’s will before the Father reveals it to him? We recoil from that (I do too - I am thinking out loud here) because classical theology associates omniscience with the divine nature - ergo the Son cannot share the Father’s essence if he is not omniscient.

But what if the divine nature is not discovered in attributes but in identity? After all we have trouble picking what attributes make humans human - a brain damaged baby is human even though she doesn’t have rationality (a classical attribute of humanity). A fertilised egg, indeed has almost no attributes but still shares fully in the human nature (I think we’ll agree) and should not be murdered.

The other reason to take this possibility seriously is because of the issues we have already brushed on re Chalcedon.

The Christ doesn’t know his return date:

- Is he tricking and really knows (some of the fathers almost say that)
- Is he speaking only from his humanity (so the Son has two consciousnesses - one omniscient and one limited?).
- Has he dipped below divinity as a human? (that can’t be right cos his death wouldn’t save cf Athanasius).

Or is his divinity located elsewhere than attributes - his identity and natural relatedness to the Father such that he can be stripped back to foetus in Mary’s womb and yet be God? He empties himself of many glorious attributes but remains himself.

** Say hey Andy,

I note that a lot of what you say here could be realised in an interpersonal model.

** Yeah; it’s like what that article by Coakley says that you have linked on your site (regarding Gregory’s “analogies” for the Trinity).  Use a number of different images, and allow them to condition one another until a flame bursts forth within the soul that becomes transparent to the thing itself.

I read a very interesting passage by GL Prestige this morning where he traces a diversity of opinion amongst the apologists where some of them speak of the Son doing the Father’s will and others have him as the Fathers will. It passed unoticed at first but later the Arians grab the first and the orthodox run with the second.

** Aye, but I’d hasten to add that the Nicenes didn’t evade the personhood of the Son.  For example, I know of no (orthodox) father whose use of Wisdom/Word/Image/Radiance/Expression was presented so thoroughly and with so much rigor as Athanasius.  But he did so while taking it for granted that the Son is a person. (On the side, I don’t put much stock into the now-current complaint that the Ancients didn’t have a category for “persons”.  While it is no doubt true that the post-Cartesian autonomous ego was foreign to them, it would be - I think - absurd to imagine that they didn’t have a concept in mind which is roughly similar to what we mean when we speak of a “person”.)

There needs to be a natural conection as will as a voluntary connection. Which is exactly what shows up in John’s gospel I think.

** Aye.  But when we get to this point, it’s so very difficult to put anything into words.  “Person” is a word which cannot be defined, even for we humans.  (Proof?  Try to give an analytic definition for you yourself.) How much more, then, with regard to God? 
I think it’d be better to pray and fast over Scripture than to simply go forward with the full steam of the intellect.

Are we are saying the same thing but emphasising different truths?

** Most probably, but I’d put it “affirming the same truth but emphasising different aspects of it”. 
Marius Victorinus was brilliant on the unity of persons, Augustine was brilliant on the theme of love; Origen clearly saw the vitality of the relationships; Bonaventure saw with nonpareil clarity the Trinitarian impress stamped on all creation, and so on.  Different people see different things; some see this clearly, others see that.

You want to qualify ideas of relationship with reminders that we are dealing with the one God.

** And I want to correct the unwarranted tendencies that analogies such as “the husband telling the wife what to do, and the wife humbly submitting, ad infinitum” invite.  There is some truth in such analogies, but we can surely do better.  My main complaint is that it fails to capture the Father’s side within the communion (as though he simply sits about telling the Son what to do?) But I’ve already covered this point, and my sentiments are exactly expressed in St. John of the Cross’s poem posted previously.

The Son does the Father’s will but that will is still properly his own not imposed on him.

** I think I agree.

What if the Son doesn’t know the Father’s will before the Father reveals it to him?

** I’d say that that is impossible, just as it’s impossible for the light to not have the sun’s radiance.  Plus, the traditional teaching of the Church is that God does not exist in time.  If that is true, then there can be no “before” or “after” for God.

But what if the divine nature is not discovered in attributes but in identity?

** Identity?  I’m not sure I follow?  God is God because he is identical with what? And if you can say what God is identical with, it would seem reasonable to ask of you a description of that with which God is, in fact, identical.  And if you are going to describe it, you’ll have to list attributes.
Regarding how to define humans, I’d say that any soul connected to a body which is descended from Adam is a human. 

- Is he tricking and really knows (some of the fathers almost say that)
- Is he speaking only from his humanity (so the Son has two consciousnesses - one omniscient and one limited?).
- Has he dipped below divinity as a human? (that can’t be right cos his death wouldn’t save cf Athanasius).

** Well, let’s take one divine attribute: omnipotence.  Omnipotence is the ability to do anything that is logically possible.  God is omnipotent.
Notice that it doesn’t follow that God will in fact do everything that is logically possible; God exercises his omnipotence in accordance with his good pleasure. 
Likewise, could we not define omniscience as the capacity to know everything?  It would seem at least possible to define it this way (and notice that according to this definition, the person is placed before the “divine essence").  If you’re willing to grant this, then it would follow that because the Son “emptied himself” he did not know, while at the same time his divinity is preserved because being in such a situation is the fulfillment of his will.
At least, I think, this should make it clear that there is bound to be an answer out there somewhere, and we need not panic over this issue.

Or is his divinity located elsewhere than attributes - his identity and natural relatedness to the Father such that he can be stripped back to foetus in Mary’s womb and yet be God? He empties himself of many glorious attributes but remains himself.

** I wouldn’t say that he emptied himself of the divine attributes; rather, I’d say that he chose a manner in which to use them.
Aye, alright, I’m off to bed.
Adios and all the best,
Matt

thankyou for such a nonpareil answer ;-) and sleep well.

btw - where exactly are you?

He lives in Sydney and just gets really really sleepy in the mid-afternoon.

Just kidding.

According to his profile

Montana, USA

Just wanted to say that I’m really appreciating this discussion. Its stretching me a little, but I’m learning heaps too ;) So, thanks.

-A-